June 21, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 105 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages H5022-H5026]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

  (Mr. SCALISE asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring of the 
majority leader the schedule for next week.
  I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our distinguished 
majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the House will meet at 12 p.m. for 
morning-hour debate, and 2 p.m. for legislative business, with votes 
postponed until 6:30 p.m.
  Members are advised that debate on amendments to H.R. 3055, the 
appropriations bill, could begin as early as 3 p.m. on Monday.
  On Tuesday and Wednesday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. for morning-
hour debate, and 12 p.m. for legislative business. Again, we will meet 
at 10 a.m. Tuesday and Wednesday.
  On Thursday, the House will meet at 9 a.m. for legislative business.
  We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. The 
complete list of suspension bills will be announced by close of 
business today.
  The House will complete consideration of the appropriations bill, 
H.R. 3055, which entails Commerce, Justice, Science, Agriculture, Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration, Interior, Environment, 
Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, and Housing 
and Urban Development Appropriations Act of 2020.
  The House will also consider H.R. 3551, the Financial Services and 
General Government Appropriations Act of 2020. That will be the tenth 
appropriations bill that we will consider and is another step toward 
the House doing its work to avoid a shutdown at the end of the fiscal 
year.
  The House will also consider H.R. 2722, Securing America's Federal 
Elections Act. This legislation will protect elections for public 
office by providing financial support and enhanced security for the 
infrastructure used to carry out such elections.

                              {time}  1115

  Lastly, additional legislative items may also be considered, 
including legislation related to humanitarian assistance at the border 
and the legislative appropriation bill.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I know the gentleman and I have been 
having the conversation for well over a month now about this crisis at 
the border. I am glad to hear that there is the possibility, maybe the 
likelihood, that there will be legislation coming to the floor to 
address the crisis.
  I am also aware, as the gentleman is, that the Senate did just pass 
legislation out of committee to address the crisis. It was a 30-1 vote, 
a very bipartisan vote, to address the crisis.
  In fact, I know that the Senate, both Republicans and Democrats in 
the Senate, worked closely with the White House to get to a point 
where, while they don't completely agree on all the details, it seems 
clear that the White House would be able to have this bill signed by 
the President, which, again, addresses the crisis before it becomes 
imminent shutdown.
  There was a letter sent just days ago, and Secretary Azar has been 
making it very clear how serious of a crisis this is, literally to the 
point where they are about to run out of money to take care of young 
children who are coming over illegally, many of whom have serious 
health problems.
  They want to take care of these kids. They are properly taking care 
of these kids, but they are about to run out of money to take care of 
these kids.
  They just sent an Antideficiency Act notice, which means they 
basically are out of money that has been appropriated by Congress. It 
would be a violation of the law to spend any money after they have run 
out of money appropriated by Congress. Under this act, they can spend 
money in violation of that law if it is to preserve life and safety. 
They are at that critical of a point.
  I make all of these points just to ask the gentleman: As we look at 
the Senate bill, while it might not be ideal, it can be signed by the 
President. We haven't seen any details of what my friend is working on 
right now. I am not sure how closely the gentleman has been working 
with the White House. Has the gentleman been working with the White 
House to come up with a bill that can actually be signed by the 
President in time to avert this crisis before they run out of money in 
a matter of days?
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  First, let me say that I am pleased that the gentleman refers to the 
Antideficiency Act and that, in this instance, the administration will 
not spend money on an object that was not designated for by the 
Congress of the United States. This is for helping children.
  Obviously, when it wanted to build a wall, it did exactly that. It 
tried to shift money that was not appropriated for. I am glad that, in 
this instance, we are honoring it, number one.
  Number two, let me say that I think the Senate's action was helpful. 
It was, as the gentleman pointed out, bipartisan. I think that will 
probably be helpful to us here as well.
  I want to say to the gentleman that I know for a fact that, certainly 
within the Appropriations Committee, there have been bipartisan 
discussions all along. There was a time when they were very close to 
agreement on what the bill would comprise.
  It is my hope that as a result of both these actions, as I said, my 
expectation is that we will pass something next week. That is my hope, 
and I know that work is being done on it as we speak. I know it will be 
done over the weekend, and I am hopeful that we will get there because 
this humanitarian relief for the children and for adults, for giving 
the proper treatment to people who are in our country and in our care, 
is very important, and we are working very hard to get that done. My 
hope is that it will be done.
  Mr. SCALISE. I just can't urge enough that as these conversations are 
happening and as this work is going on over the weekend that it is work 
not just among Democrat appropriators and Democrat leadership but that 
the

[[Page H5023]]

majority is working with Republicans as well and with the White House 
as well because we have been hearing that there may be some of what 
would be considered poison pills that might be added.
  There are things that the agency is doing. For example, HHS is trying 
to find more places to house these children. They have over 13,000 
children in their custody right now, in their care, and they want to 
take care of them. They need the money to take care of them. They are 
literally days away from running out of money to take care of them.
  This is the midnight hour, but it is not the midnight hour because 
they just dropped it. This has been known for over a month. They have 
been asking for this money for over a month. They are days away from 
running out.
  If this becomes a game where only a partisan bill is brought to the 
floor with poison pills that everybody knows the White House can't 
support, when we have seen the Senate take action with a 30-1 vote on a 
bill that the President can support, if a bill comes out of the House 
that does have those kinds of poison pills and limits the ability of 
the agency--not on the wall.
  We are not even talking about all the other problems with the border 
and things that are causing so many people to come over illegally. We 
still have to deal with that. Now we are just talking about taking care 
of these kids.
  The Senate proved that they can pass a bill in a very bipartisan way 
that can be signed by the President. We need to be working not just 
among Democrats but among Republicans with the White House on a bill 
the President can sign because if we don't pass a bill by the end of 
next week--the gentleman from Maryland makes the schedule. He knows the 
schedule. We are not here on July Fourth recess. Once we leave next 
week, if we don't have a bill that the President can sign passed 
through the House and through the Senate, they go into shutdown mode. 
They will literally be in shutdown mode after the July Fourth recess.

  The employees of HHS will not get paid. They will have to be finding 
money to feed these young kids, over 13,000 of them, with moneys that 
are not appropriated by Congress. They will be out of money.
  I appreciate that the gentleman has a group working on a bill, but I 
can't urge enough that this bill has to be bipartisan and in a way that 
the President can sign by the time we leave next week. If we go to 
conference because the House passes a partisan bill when the Senate 
proved that they can come together and pass a very bipartisan bill 30-1 
out of committee that the President will sign--we have to be working on 
that same track.
  Otherwise, if we leave next week without a bill that is signed by the 
President, they go into shutdown. Those 13,000-plus kids who are being 
treated will be being treated by HHS employees who won't be getting 
paid and with money to feed them and take care of their healthcare 
needs from who knows what account.
  There is no money left. Again, this isn't a new problem. This has 
been known for over a month. We have been urging action.
  I would just urge that while the work is being done over the weekend, 
can we get an assurance that it will be done in a way that we will be 
working with the White House like the Senate did, Republicans and 
Democrats, a 30-1 vote out of committee, that kind of approach as 
opposed to an approach that might include some poison pills that 
everybody knows then poison the well where it won't be signed by the 
President?
  I yield to the gentleman, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I understand that this is a critical issue that we 
need to address, but I believe that the gentleman is not accurate.
  HHS employees are going to get paid. This money that is being 
appropriated is for the special, additional services that we need to 
make sure are available. I don't think there is a question of HHS 
employees not getting paid.
  More importantly, it is an issue as to whether or not the services 
are going to be available to provide the humanitarian treatment that 
the gentleman talks about, and I think we are in full agreement.
  I will say again that I think the Senate's action is helpful. It was 
bipartisan. Very frankly, I think it, hopefully, is going to help us 
get to some bipartisan agreement here.
  Frankly, I will tell the gentleman, we thought we were pretty close 
to a bipartisan agreement with the Republicans, and the Republicans and 
Democrats have been working on this in the committee, as the gentleman 
knows. We were pretty close to agreement. We didn't get there.
  They got to it in the Senate, which meant the Democrats went along 
with what the majority could support because they are the majority. 
Hopefully, we can do that here and get a bipartisan bill.
  I will tell the gentleman that I am working very hard and am very 
focused on getting a bill done so that we do not leave here without a 
bill having been passed to provide this humanitarian relief that is so 
essential.
  Mr. SCALISE. I thank the gentleman for that commitment because I know 
that our teams will be talking. The leadership teams will be talking 
and working, hopefully, completely together in a way where, when we 
look at the Senate bill, there are components of the Senate bill that I 
would prefer not be in there, and I know there are things that the 
White House would rather not have in that bill, but there is give-and-
take.
  There has been give-and-take, and it has gotten to a point where they 
at least recognize that, with the things that they might not want, 
there are no poison pills in it. At least it gives them the tools they 
need so that the agency can take care of those 13,700-plus kids who are 
here.
  We can talk all day about why a mother and father would send their 
12-year-old daughter on a journey from another country into America, 
but it is happening. When they come here, they need to be properly 
taken care of, and that money is literally about to run out in days.
  Mr. HOYER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SCALISE. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. I want to make a comment on what the gentleman just said.
  I think most of us are parents. I have had three 12-year-old 
daughters. All were 12 years of age at one point in time, and I 
wouldn't send them unless I thought their lives were at risk, unless I 
thought they were in great danger by remaining with me, unless I 
thought the alternative of staying was worse than the risk.
  That is why they come here, because they are terrified that their 
child is going to be taken from them by death, not by trying to get to 
an America that is the light of the world, that they think is the land 
of opportunity. That is why they come here. That is why they take this 
risk.
  Very frankly, we should have passed comprehensive immigration reform 
a long time ago so that there was a safe route and an open door and so 
that people seeking refuge and asylum, which is under American law, 
would be able to do that.
  I agree. Sending these children has to be wrenching for a parent. But 
the alternative they find to be even more wrenching, more dangerous, 
and riskier for that 12-year-old child, and so they send them here. 
They send them here because the reputation of America is that we will 
treat people humanely, thoughtfully, and safely. And it is our 
responsibility to do that.
  Mr. SCALISE. I appreciate that, and obviously, when you see that 
somebody would send their child--let's use Guatemala as an example 
because they are one of the countries where a lot of these young 
children are coming from. They went through Mexico. Mexico offered them 
asylum, and they turned that down and, ultimately, came to America.
  I appreciate the fact that people look to America as that beacon of 
freedom. We are the beacon of freedom for a lot of reasons.

  One of the reasons is because we are a nation of freedom and laws. We 
are a nation of laws, and we need to find a way to get back to the rule 
of law so that we can have an immigration system that works for 
everybody, not just for the people who come over one way but for the 
people who follow the rule of law to come here legally.

[[Page H5024]]

  Millions of people are waiting today to come to this great country 
and ultimately will become part of the American Dream. They will add to 
the richness and greatness of our Nation.
  But as those 12-year-old children are coming over, they are right now 
in the custody of HHS because of our laws. But under our law, they are 
literally running out of money.
  The HHS Secretary sent a letter to all of us over a week ago. In that 
letter, he said that our valued Federal employees in ORR who care for 
children and place them with sponsors would be required to work without 
pay. That is from the Secretary of HHS. Under the law, his employees 
would be required to work without pay if we break by the end of next 
week without an agreement that is signed by the President to properly 
fund the agency that is taking care of these 13,700-plus kids. That was 
from the letter Secretary Azar and Secretary McAleenan, the Acting 
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, sent to every Member 
of Congress over a week ago.
  The agency has told us what the crisis is. They have told us they are 
about to run out of money. They have sent the Antideficiency Act notice 
to make it clear that under the law, if they run out of money, the only 
money they can spend is for life and safety of those kids, and they are 
going to be doing that.
  But we can prevent that from happening. We need to prevent that from 
happening.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I want to correct myself. The gentleman was 
correct. I have just been informed because they are funded, the 
employees, specifically under that account, the gentleman is correct 
and I was incorrect, and apparently, they would not be paid.
  Obviously, the general Labor-Health bill that we passed up until 
September 30 of this year funds almost all employees. But apparently, 
because these funds are segregated in this account, my friend is 
correct that they would not be paid.
  In any event, while I am concerned, and maybe some of those folks 
live in my district, while I am concerned about them being paid, I, 
frankly, share my friend's concern, which is a much greater concern, 
that people who come here under and consistent with U.S. law, seeking 
asylum from the danger that they face at home, need to be treated in a 
humanitarian way. So I certainly agree that we want to make sure people 
get paid.
  We shut down the government for 35 days, and 400,000 people did not 
get paid. Actually, 800,000 did not get paid, and 400,000 people had to 
work.

                              {time}  1130

  We offered numerous bills which, very frankly, the gentleman's party 
voted against on a regular basis, which would have opened up the 
government and paid those employees. So, I wish we had been more 
concerned, during those 35 days, with them getting paid.
  But the real concern--and I know the gentleman and I share this 
view--is the humanitarian treatment of the people who are here in our 
care.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, the gentleman and I need to and, 
hopefully, will work closely together--not isolated, but together--over 
the weekend to come up with a bill to solve this problem, recognizing 
that the Senate is going to, hopefully, move their own bill that, while 
flawed, does address the basic needs, so that those children can be 
taken care of and the employees can be paid, and we can come together 
and get a bill done by the end of next week.
  The urgency of getting it done by the end of next week can't be 
understated because, after that, they have made it very clear they do 
run out of money. It is not a new issue. It is not something that is 
thrown at us at the midnight hour. For more than a month this has been 
identified.
  So, I appreciate that we are going to work to get it done. Let's make 
sure we do work to get it done.
  I know there are a lot of other issues we can talk about: the 
appropriations process, the need to come together on an agreement on 
what the proper levels of spending are and should be, that the 
President would also agree with us on, so that we can be writing 
appropriations bills that would actually have the chance to get signed 
into law and prevent a shutdown, that kind of impasse, by the end of 
September.
  This is the emergency, immediate need. There are other things that we 
need to keep working on, and I look forward to working with the 
gentleman in the coming days and weeks to address those problems as 
well.
  If the gentleman has anything else, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I would just say, as the gentleman knows 
because I have talked to him about it, I have been trying to get an 
agreement on caps since January.
  I talked to Senator McConnell; I talked to Senator Shelby; I talked 
to Ranking Member Granger; obviously, Mrs. Lowey, the chairwoman of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  I have worked almost ceaselessly on trying to get a caps deal, which 
I think all of us think is absolutely essential.
  Very frankly, I think there are those down at the White House--and I 
specifically reference the Acting Chief of Staff, Mr. Mulvaney--who 
believed that a caps deal was not the policy they thought ought to be 
proceeded on and would have preferred and talked about having either a 
sequester, which I think neither side thinks would make much sense, 
either on the defense side or the nondefense side--but that a CR was a 
preferred alternative and, frankly, a negotiation at the very latest 
moment was a strategy.
  I witnessed that, as the gentleman knows, the Republican Senators 
tried to negotiate with the White House so that the Republican White 
House and the Republican Senators tried to negotiate a caps deal and 
could not. So, it had nothing to do with Democratic participation at 
that point in time.
  Now, what we have done, as the gentleman knows, is we have, in 
effect, adopted a level of spending to which we have marked our bills. 
That level of spending, I will tell you, on the defense side, I have 
reason to believe is agreeable to many Republican leaders at the top 
level on the gentleman's side.
  The domestic level of spending was consistent with the raise in 
defense and domestic, as we have done in prior deals.
  The prior, most recent deal, as the gentleman knows, was reached 
between Speaker Ryan and Senator Murray. I would be hopeful that we 
would reach such a deal.
  Obviously, if the gentleman reaches a deal, the President has to be 
part of that, because you have got to amend the sequester law by 
statute, and the President has to sign it.
  But we are moving ahead. This is our alternative. We are going to be 
passing 10, 11 of our bills, we hope, next week, and we will send them 
over to the Senate.
  The Senate will, presumably, at some point in time, act upon its 
bills. If there is a different number, we will have to reconcile the 
numbers, in conference, in the regular order, and hopefully pass those 
bills in time so that there will not either be the necessity for a 
continuing resolution, which really is a recognition of the failure to 
get the appropriations process done, which has happened often on both 
sides of the aisle, so it is not a question of just--but, that the 
Congress has not reached agreement, as it should have.
  So, we are proceeding. We are proceeding in a timely fashion. We are 
going to send at least 10 or 11 bills to the Senate, and we will send 
the Homeland Security bill, hopefully, at some point in time, or reach 
agreement between the two parties, and the two houses, so that I think 
we have done everything we could possibly do, absent the ability of, 
frankly, the gentleman's side to get agreement among itself on what the 
gentleman thinks the cap numbers ought to be.
  I was hoping, in discussion with Senator McConnell, that between the 
two parties we could reach agreement, but that has not happened. But, 
hopefully, at some point in time it will happen soon because, 
ultimately, it has to happen, because the sequester is not an option, 
and the CR ought not to be an option either.
  We are doing our work, considering amendments. We are in the regular 
order. This is the way it should be done. I am proud that it is being 
done this way, and I am hopeful that it will result in agreement and a 
signature on appropriation bills by the President, so

[[Page H5025]]

we do not shut down the government or have to operate under a CR.
  Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, the political differences between the 
parties are not mutually exclusive to Republicans. Clearly, we have had 
ours within the Budget Committee.

  Now that you are in the majority, the Democrats on the Budget 
Committee could not come to an agreement amongst themselves about how 
to get a budget, which is why the Democrat majority, the gentleman's 
Democrat majority, didn't pass a budget. The first time in 9 years that 
the Budget Committee hasn't produced a budget out of committee.
  We produced all 8 years we were in the majority. We had differences, 
clearly, and some of those were well written about in the press, but we 
ultimately came together and passed our budgets, every year of the 8 
years, out of committee.
  Many of those not only got through the floor but went into law. 
Sometimes we got those 2-year budget agreements so we didn't need the 
second year.
  This is the time to be working on negotiating our differences. I am 
glad we are having these conversations on finding out if we can get to 
a caps deal.
  Even the Acting Chief of Staff, Mr. Mulvaney, who was mentioned, 
would like to get a 2-year deal. I am sure he has some things he would 
like in a deal that the gentleman wouldn't agree to, but that is going 
to be negotiated. That is why we have negotiations in June, not in 
September when it is the midnight hour.
  So, I am glad we are having these talks now. Of course we have 
differences within our parties, the gentleman's party and mine. 
Ultimately, amongst ourselves, we will have differences, but the ideal 
objective is that we come together well before the September 30 
deadline.
  That is why it is important that these discussions are being held 
now, not in September, so that we can hopefully get that agreement and 
then write appropriations bills.
  I think the gentleman knows, the bills that he is moving through the 
process this week, next week, are not bills that will be signed into 
law, not only because, in many cases, the spending levels are well 
above what we would agree to but, also, the many poison pill amendments 
that will ultimately get worked out in a conference committee. They 
won't be in a final product.
  But let's at least try to get in agreement on a caps deal. We are in 
a time frame where, at least, it is responsible to have these 
differences earlier, not later, in the fiscal year.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, it is interesting the gentleman says these 
bills aren't going to become law.
  That had no restraint on the gentleman's side of the aisle when that 
side was in charge in the appropriations bills the gentleman passed in 
a totally partisan fashion, I would observe.
  We didn't think they would get past the Senate. They didn't get past 
the Senate. They didn't become law. There was a compromise made.
  The gentleman did the same thing. Why? Because the gentleman thought 
that was, from a policy standpoint, the correct thing to do.
  We are doing exactly the same thing. Will we have negotiations 
between the House and the Senate as to levels of spending and other, as 
the gentleman points out, provisions in the bills? Of course we will.
  But the assertion that: Why are you passing bills? They won't pass 
the Senate. I would hope they pass the Senate. I think they are 
excellent bills. I think they provide for the national security, both 
on the defense side and on the domestic side.
  Very frankly, we put defense and labor-health together. Why? Because 
the gentleman had made that a way to proceed.
  Why did the gentleman make it a way to proceed? Because those on the 
other side, for the most part, are hesitant to vote for the levels that 
we expect are necessary for education and the health of our people.
  Having said that, when the gentleman says it won't pass the Senate, 
the gentleman's bills didn't pass the Senate. The gentleman passed them 
because he thought they were good policy. We are passing them because 
we think they are good policy.
  And I, frankly, think, but for the fact that I think the gentleman 
has expressed a policy on his side of, ``Don't vote for these bills,'' 
we would have gotten a significant number of Republican votes on a 
number of these bills. We did get some votes.
  But let us hope that we get to a deal on what the spending levels 
ought to be. And, as I point out, without any Democratic participation, 
the Republican Senators can't get a level with the White House. They 
tried. They worked at it. It was publicly reported.
  The gentleman has been unable to get an agreement within his own 
party on those levels. My view is, I think Mr. Mulvaney doesn't want a 
deal. Mr. Scalise says he wants a 2-year deal. I hope he is right. I 
hope the gentleman is right that Mr. Mulvaney will, with Mr. Mnuchin, 
come to grips with doing a 2-year deal to give us some degree of 
stability.
  The gentleman is correct. He didn't have to get a budget because we 
made a 2-year deal. It couldn't have gotten through the Senate if we 
hadn't agreed on it. But we made a 2-year deal. It wasn't exactly at 
the levels we wanted.
  Senator Murray led that negotiation on our behalf. We reached it, and 
we had some degree of stability. And that is why the other side was 
able to pass their bills without a budget, because we already had a 
number. They didn't need a 302a number.
  Now we are getting into jargon here, but suffice it to say, yes, we 
are passing bills at levels we think are appropriate. Many on the 
gentleman's side disagree with that. The Senate may disagree.
  The way we get to a resolution is we have a conference and we come to 
an agreement. Hopefully, that will happen, and we will not shut down 
the government of the United States, which we did, partially, for 35 
days. That is the way this institution ought to work, and I hope it 
does work that way.
  Mr. SCALISE. I do appreciate this is part of the process. And, again, 
I say the reason that it is good that we are having these talks now is 
because, as we have our differences--the gentleman within his own 
party, the gentleman with us, us with the Senate, maybe with the White 
House--we have time to work that out now, and we don't wait until mid-
September, late September, to try to get that kind of agreement.

  So, we will continue to have these discussions. I am glad we are 
having these discussions at this early point so that it is not 
midnight-hour discussions like we were talking about on the 
supplemental.
  Final point: I wanted to just commend the gentleman. We had a very 
good meeting yesterday, our two leadership teams, with the Canadian 
Prime Minister.
  Mr. Trudeau was here to talk to us about a number of things. Of 
course, USMCA is the most imminent and most up-front issue. Mexico just 
passed the agreement.
  I know we are having discussions to see if we can find a path forward 
for the House to move USMCA and get a better deal with our partners, 
both on the south and north, Canada and Mexico.
  They loaned us Lord Stanley's cup. We are going to loan them the NBA 
trophy for a little while. But, beyond those trade issues, we do, I 
think, have some common ground on some trade issues that had been 
needed to be resolved for a long time.
  I know we are going to continue to have those discussions, Mr. Hoyer 
with the White House, to hopefully get to a point where we can, then, 
get that agreement in place. But I do appreciate that we had a very 
productive, bipartisan meeting with the Canadian Prime Minister, Mr. 
Trudeau, and we appreciated that he was here on behalf of his Nation.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HOYER. I agree with the Republican whip that these were 
productive meetings between Prime Minister Trudeau and members of his 
cabinet: the finance minister, the ambassador, the foreign minister was 
there. I think they were productive.
  I think our side has made it very clear that we want to get to yes. 
We believe that the USMCA is an improvement over existing NAFTA, and it 
also accommodates for changes that have occurred over the last 30 years 
or so.
  We very much want to see, however, that we have enforcement 
provisions in

[[Page H5026]]

the new agreement which apply to workers, their safety, their standard 
of living, and to the environment, as well as some concerns about 
pharmaceuticals and biologics.
  But we want to get to yes. Our friends in labor want to get to yes. 
We believe this is an improvement.
  I am hopeful we can get enforcement provisions. I know that Speaker 
Pelosi has made it very clear what we need to get to a yes, and I am 
hopeful we get there because, personally, I think it will be in the 
best interest of the country because it is an improvement over the 
existing NAFTA.
  That doesn't mean it is perfect. None of these agreements are 
perfect. But it was a productive discussion and, hopefully, it will 
lead to solutions.
  Mr. SCALISE. I am equally hopeful we can get that resolved, and I 
appreciate the gentleman's work on that.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________